Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Bolding a term that is the title of a disambiguation page with an incoming link

When [[Foo]] is a disambiguation page, and one of its entries is a link to [[Bar]], and "Foo" is mentioned as an alternative title in the Bar article, is it appropriate to emphasise Foo in boldface in the Bar article then, just like a redirect title? (After all, it's basically a redirect title, only an ambiguous one, so it cannot be an automatic redirect.) I thought this was the common practice, as I have often seen it, but I cannot find any rule here which recommends this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This? MOS:BOLD#OTHER - Donald Albury 21:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that section doesn't treat this case. Unless I'm missing it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Florian Blaschke: The reason why we would bold terms in articles in these sort of cases is to conform to the "principle of least astonishment". When we're reading article text and we follow a link, we expect to arrive at an article whose title resembles the text of the link. Sometimes that text is a redirect which is an alternative title and therefore we bold the first occurrence of that text in the target article to draw the reader's attention to the fact that they have arrived at the correct article. So the text heart attack redirects to Myocardial infarction and the article displays "commonly known as a heart attack" in the opening sentence. The same is true of searches: a search for the text heart attack also arrives immediately at Myocardial infarction, so having a bold heart attack is a kindness to the reader.

Now, what you're considering is when we might have piped text such as [[Tottenham Hotspur F.C.|Spurs]], which displays Spurs. Naturally, the article begins "Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, commonly referred to as ... Spurs" for exactly the same reasons as above. Note that Spurs is not a redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and, as you say, the boldface in these cases isn't documented here.

However, disambiguation pages don't really enter the consideration. The page at Spurs is indeed a disambiguation page, and the disambiguation term is quite probably a good alternative title for each of its entries, but we would bold them because they are likely or common alternative titles (and therefore likely piped links), not because they are listed at a dab page. Anyone following a search that takes them to a dab page is almost certain to then become aware of the actual article title they are going to.

I do agree that our guidance here should document the regular use of boldface to mark up the first occurrence of common alternative titles, precisely because they may be reached via piped links. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

[Addendum]: I realised that MOS:BOLDLEAD might have more information. It states

Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold

References

So the case of significant alternative titles is documented at Wikipedia:Article titles, which is policy. The guidance here certainly ought to be consistent with that. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thank you. So this is basically a case of an "unwritten rule" type of custom so far, but existing practice is a sufficient precedent to follow it in other articles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS:, your "ruling" here is being used in very dubious fashion, to support a reversion at North_Germanic_peoples (yes folks, this is a User:Krakkos issue). Krakkos's text for the article begins: "North Germanic peoples, also called Scandinavians,[1] Nordic peoples[2] and historically Norsemen,[1]..." Originally he bolded all three supposed "alternate" terms, and reverted my unbolding of Norsemen, which has its own article, and now Florian Blaschke is reverting my unbolding of the other two, Scandinavians and Nordic peoples, which are disam pages (which they are not linking to either). The strange thing is that the talk page of North Germanic peoples is filled up with thousands of bytes by Krakkos, supported by Blaschke, saying that North Germanic peoples, Scandinavians, and Nordic peoples are all very different things indeed. This might be called having your cake and eating it. It is typical of Krakkos' attempts to distort WP coverage of ethnic areas by rearranging categories and diverting links to articles that fit into his own dodgy division of Eurasian history by ethno-linguistic groups, and away from the previous (and usually better) categories and articles. See the recent Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_72#Norsemen. In this highly controversial context, these alternative or not-so-alternative terms should certainly NOT be bolded, nor the links to the articles that actually cover the terms suppressed. Note that if a reader wants to start the complicated process of understanding what "Scandinavians" and "Nordic peoples" do and do not cover, the disam pages are certainly the place to start, not North Germanic peoples, which barely mentions the matter in the article (though as I say, there is plenty on the talk page - maybe we should link to that. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod - You are continuing to spread lies about me at various noticeboards without notifying me. Please stop this disruptive behavior. Florian Blaschke is not the only editor who expressed opposition to your edits. Every single member WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies that has participated at Talk:North Germanic peoples has been opposed to your proposals. This includes two Editors of the Week (three with me included), Wikipedia's foremost contributors to the topic of North Germanic/Scandinavian/Nordic/Norse culture and history. Nobody has said that "North Germanic peoples, Scandinavians, and Nordic peoples are all very different things indeed". This is of course a fabrication, which is why you're not providing any diffs. What has been said is that the term Scandinavian and Nordic generally refers to inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Nordic countries respectively. As per WP:COMMONNAME, such ambiguous terms should be avoided as titles. This ambiguity has been raised countless times, but continue to ignore it. Scandinavians and Nordic people are disambiguation pages and should not be linked to in articles as per WP:INTDAB. Removing such links is following policy, it is not suppression. Your accusation that i "distort WP coverage of ethnic areas by rearranging categories" is of course again baseless. I was earlier made an Editor of the Week precisely for changes to ethnic categories. This theory of distortion is a figment of your imagination. Having to defend myself against your attempts to poison other editors with this conspiratorial view is becoming a giant waste of time. Krakkos (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

People (with patience) can read what you have said, and make their own minds up! I wouldn't put too much store in Editor of the Week which seems to be awarded by a jury of, er, 1 1/2. As you well know, the pile of editors with issues about your editing is large and growing, though only those with the patience to wade through your huge list of contributions can grasp the whole picture. You were pinged by linking in my first contribution above. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

For once we agree. People should indeed read for themselves what has actually been said and make their own mins up. Though your attack links to my userpage, i was certainly not pinged. Krakkos (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, John. I never intended that to be seen as a ruling, just an exploration of the reasons why we use boldface for titles other than that of the article itself. The key unresolved issue is whether we should bold terms that are used as displayed text in piped links. In general, I believe that there is justification for doing so, both by analogy with redirects and by common practice. However, among the 50 piped links to North Germanic peoples, there is only one that displays "Scandinavian" (in the table at Ethnic groups in Europe #European ethnic groups by sovereign state) and none that display "Nordic peoples". The sole piped link would probably be better as a direct, unpiped link anyway. That would seem to me to imply very little justification for bolding either of those particular terms. --RexxS (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't think you did. Bear in mind that I and other editors have spent a lot of time reversing the links to these terms, plus Vikings etc, that Krakkos had systematically diverted to North Germanic peoples, which is his typical modus operandi (some examples at the NPOV board thread). Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please notify other users when writing negative (and misleading) things about them. Krakkos (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, here he is at it, just in the last 5 minutes! Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like Johnbod was "at it" as well.[1] Krakkos (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh? - that is different, and clearly an improvement. Don't you get notifies when Krakkos is linked? You should. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You did not link to my userpage when talking about my alleged "typical modus operandi of systematic diversion". That is dishonorable. Krakkos (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Bolding navbox links

Should MOS:BOLD discourage bolding of links in navboxes? It seems to follow from WP:BRINT, which discourages redirects in navboxes because with a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template. However, allowing manually-added bolding to navbox links leads to multiple links being bolded—the "current page" on the navbox, and any others which were manually bolded. For example, see 2002 USC Trojans football team#References at the navbox "USC Trojans football".—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support, there is no need or reason to bold links in almost any templates. The bolding of the championship years in the Trojans football template seems fine and a clever way of passing along information, but those instances should be carefully used. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I had no idea what the bold was representing until I read Randy Kryn comment. The navbox should not be a place where you need to guess what the information is there to represent. It's supposed to be an easy and fast way to navigate between related articles. No reason at all to bold the championship years in that navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  I hear what you both are saying. Is a bad implementation of using bold in a navbox link reason enough to make this a rule? The self referential link stops being a link and looks different than the other links that are bolded. Is it generally not a good idea to bold links? PopularOutcast ^talk2me 13:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  @PopularOutcast: Typically you can see where you are at when navigating through a navbox by looking for the bolded link. In this case, there are multiple bolded links. Sure they are a different color, but that also brings up MOS:ACCESS issues. Even for those with no color issues, the bolded links still look quite similiar at first glance.—Bagumba (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Uses like those in the referenced navbox might also be italicized or marked with a notation instead of bold, so I don't see a problem with removing bold there. I am not sure it is necessary for MOS:BOLD to comment on this. If it does, it should be careful to allow links to be bold where they would otherwise be bold, such as in table headings and in definition list terms. --Izno (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Izno: The issue I brought up only applies to navboxes and in relation to the navbox bolding described at WP:BRINT.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The question you asked is what I answered: Should MOS:BOLD discourage bolding of links in navboxes? --Izno (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I am confused then as to which "definition list terms" you are referring to?—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Markup beginning a line with the semi-colon character ; creates what is known as a definition list term. These are bolded by default generally. --Izno (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @Bagumba: These (now called description lists in HTML5, but what Izno was referring to):

          Description list - term

          Description list - description1

          Description list - description2

        • The sort of thing you see used in a glossary (and misused elsewhere). --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Browsers generally make the term bold, but our own skin css makes it bold anyway. --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I declined to mention the skin piece of it since mentioning it might cause or add to confusion. (Timeless does a serif unbolded thing with description list terms rather than bold sans-serif, which was the other reason.) --Izno (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral: The templates at 2002 USC Trojans football team are obviously badly designed. If you go to 1888 USC Methodists football team (not a championship year) the year will display in bold even though it is not a championship year and the navbox says "National championship seasons in bold", which is incorrect. I don't think we need a MOS rule, though one would do no harm. The self-evident poor design of templates using bold should be obvious and simply undone. DrKay (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary color scales

For example, the table in List of terrorist incidents in October 2018 contains plenty of original research in highlighting the death and injury counts. Here I focus on the colors, but boldface and italics can similarly apply. In Microsoft Excel, this is called the Color Scale Conditional Formatting. Wiki-tables have a built-in sort function, and color gimmicks are unnecessary. MOS:NAVBOXCOLOUR makes it clear that we mostly use colors for identification, and color scales are a bad use of colors in my opinion. I propose that color scales are deprecated, unless in cases where a good, non-promotional reason to use them can be found in reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 16:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Color scales as used in the example page are actually damaging as they can mislead the reader. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sámi vs. Sami vs. Saami

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Kildin Sami orthography#Requested move 21 December 2018 – multi-page RM primarily about diacritics in an endonym.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

mvar and lower-case-L vs upper case-i

The "Mathematics variables" section states:

"The template {{mvar}} is available to distinguish between I (upper-case i) and l (lower-case L) as variables, which look almost identical in most sans-serif fonts, including the default typefaces of many browsers."

But if I follow the Wikilink to mvar, there is no information on that page about distinguishing upper-case i and lower-case L. Where is that information? Shouldn't this paragraph link to that, wherever it is (instead of, or in addition to, the mvar link)?

STarry (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested for tricky WORDSASWORDS case

The article LGBT is about the term LGBT and where it came from. The article mentions over a dozen other related terms, most of which are also redirects, some of which are synonymous with LGBT, but most of which are not. Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:LGBT#Words as words in lead. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD for redirected names

I recently created two redirects, Solomon Kahane and Jason Herman. Should I also bold their names in the target article, Congregation Beth Israel West Side Jewish Center? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: From my reading of MOS, I would say, definitely yes. They are not trivial mentions in that article, and it helps answer the user question, "Hey, why was I redirected here?" See MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. As a separate issue, imho, this is not the place for a nickname ("Shlomo"); I would leave it out. That's an informal detail more appropriate for the article, after it is written, or possibly a footnote. Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me User:Mathglot. I can highlight the names, though it looks very strange to me. I could also leave out "Shlomo", even though that's what he was called (regardless of his legal name); perhaps like Bill Clinton. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: Just noticed those names were both first mentioned in the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH; normally, you would bold them there, instead, and not where they appear for a second time. Either way, whatever you bold should match your redirect, and currently, it doesn't. I doubt he was called "Solomon 'Shlomo' Kahane" in formal settings, was he? I imagine they would use either "Solomon Kahane" or "Shlomo Kahane" (seems to be confirmed in Google books) but not both at once; if that's the case, you could have two redirects. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Update: not sure if the mismatch matters; I don't see anything about it in the style guide. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, I'm not sure what changes you are suggesting (if any). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: I'm suggesting you undo this edit and this one, and bold the two names up in the lead, instead. The lead currently omits "Shlomo", which is, imho, the right way to do it, so all you have to do is bold what's already there. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Done. Thanks for the feedback. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

We do not

We do not in fact routinely italicize titles of articles about words. Red Slash 17:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume this is about my reversion of your addition? My main reason for doing so was that I thought it was outside the scope of this page, rather than because I disagreed with the content. (For those missing the context here, there's an ongoing thread at Wikipedia talk:Article titles about whether to italicize titles of articles about words-as-words.) Colin M (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Italics as a note

Is the usage of italics found at Beyond: Two Souls#Plot correct per the MoS? And if it isn't, how should this be set? --Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Arguably in line with § Uses of italics that are specific to Wikipedia: One-line notes may also be placed at the top of sections to cross-reference or point to additional information that is not directly linked in the text. Both of these are in italics and indented to distinguish them from the text of the article proper. Even if the note isn't exactly a cross-reference or additional information, I'd say it's at least a "self-reference... not part of the article content proper" (per the last paragraph of that section). I think it's good the way it is. Colin M (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at {{Selfref}} and seeing some of its transclusions, I'm not so sure this should count as a self-reference, at least as it's defined in that template. I still feel like removing the italics/indent would make it marginally less clear, but I'm not seeing support for it in the MoS. Colin M (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah {{Selfref}} uses {{hatnote}} and that follows MOS:HATNOTE which does give this style as a valid example. --Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This note strikes me as unnecessary. The general reader won't know the difference (unless pointed out elsewhere as it perhaps should be in the design section) and we don't write for the non-general reader. The editor confused by it could perhaps get an edit comment to save you from all the usually-less-than-innocent changers. --Izno (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Going to take the opposite view on this – as MOS:PLOT says "Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements [...] may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer". If for example I read the plot for Memento without any explanation, and then saw the film, I would wonder what was going on. I'd agree with Colin M that the italic formatting does seem non-standard, but that it helps the reader. ‑‑Yodin^T 12:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw Memento five times and I still didn't know what was going on. EEng 02:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's a "Wikipedia talking to the editor" annotation, then it's a self-ref, and should be italicized, since that's the style we use for those ({{Hatnote}} and its relatives). If its not something that should be a hatnote, then use {{Cross-reference}}. It has parameters for printworthy and not printworthy (default is non-printworthy). If the cross-ref is to another page from mainspace, it's not printworthy; if it's to another point on the same page, it is printworthy. Our articles are supposed to be able to stand on their own as content, per WP:REUSE. The {{Selfref}} template shouldn't be used for such cross-references in mainspace, and has a more specialized function. Anyway, in the case in point at Beyond: Two Souls#Plot, it's not a cross-reference but editorial commentary to the reader, and belongs in {{Hatnote}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Italicizing titles within titles in citations?

This one's been bugging me for a while and I've had a hard time finding anything definitive about it in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. My question is, should we italicize the titles of major works (books and movies) within the titles of minor works (articles and chapters) in the "cite web/news/books" templates? Here are two examples:

1. Sherman, Jennifer (December 2, 2019). "Promare, Okko's Inn, Weathering With You Anime Films Nominated for Annie Awards". Anime News Network. Retrieved December 3, 2019.
2. Sherman, Jennifer (December 2, 2019). "Promare, Okko's Inn, Weathering With You Anime Films Nominated for Annie Awards". Anime News Network. Retrieved December 3, 2019.

My common sense says they should be italicized, and apparently, the MLA Style Guide states that titles within titles should be italicized, too. The Anime News Network article I cited also italicizes the various titles within its title (visible on the website's news feed). However, MOS:QUOTETITLE seems to take issue with "additional markups" for titles in double quotation marks, such as boldface (and presumably italics). Or did I read that section incorrectly? I find its wording to be a bit confusing, to be honest.

I'd appreciate any additional input, as well as a fresh pair of eyes to read the MOS since my brain's fried at the moment. Thanks in advance! – KuroMina (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Those titles should be in italics; #1 is correct. How to deal with a major work in the title of another major work is less clear; I've seen single quotation marks and partly unitalicised solutions: "Last, First (year). Commentary on Shakespeare's 'Othello'." and "Last, First (year). Commentary on Shakespeare's Othello." and of course completely unadorned: "Last, First (year). Commentary on Shakespeare's Othello." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

We have a style thing somewhere or another in the WP:MOS pages that directs us to regularize to our style (even in citations following a non-external format), but I can't remember the shortcut. I've had dashes tweaked on me before I found it subsequently; italics are not that far. --Izno (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Thanks. :) That's what I figured, but I just wanted to be sure; I've noticed that many Wikipedia articles do not italicize the titles of major works within the titles of minor works in citations, despite the rest of the article being properly formatted, so I worried that I might have overlooked a rule. Perhaps someone can add something to the MOS about this for future reference. – KuroMina (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The typography for title of major works in quoted material is explicitly mentioned at MOS:CONFORM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: This is exactly what I was looking for (yet somehow overlooked, whoops). Thank you! – KuroMina (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, italicize them. We've been over this many times at WT:CS1, WT:CITE, etc. I'm pretty sure this is already covered in the citation template documentation. Per MOS:CONFORM, it's also good to convert other approaches to our approach; e.g. if the website used 'Promare', 'Okko's Inn', 'Weathering With You' Anime Films Nominated for Annie Awards, on WP use |title=''Promare'', ''Okko's Inn'', ''Weathering with You'' Anime Films Nominated for Annie Awards (same goes for boldface, ALL-CAPS, or some other approach used for titles at some random site/publication).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Mixing italics and roman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to WT:Manual of Style#Mixing italics and roman

Please do not open duplicate threads, per WP:TALKFORK, WP:MULTI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Pluralizing or possessiv…izing an italicized word leads to mixed formatting, as In Othello's first act…. I've seen some style guides recommend rewriting to avoid this, but can't find anything in our own. Do we care? —151.132.206.250 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Italics for English words in a side box

There are plans to enhance {{wiktionary}} per a discussion here. An example of current behavior is shown in the box at the right.

The side box currently shows the three links (English, Russian and Japanese) in bold italics. How should they be formatted? The discussion at Italics for English words is stuck with one view being that MOS restricts italics to foreign words, while another favors italics per words-as-words and consistency. Thoughts needed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hint: "MOS restricts italics to foreign words" is obviously nonsense. However, example shown to the left is wrong for another reason: don't italicize material that is not Latin-based script.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew doesn't use italics

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms includes "However, titles of major works that should be italicized are italicized in scripts that support that feature (including Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, and Hebrew)...." Among Ancient Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, and all versions between, italics are not used. Hebrew texts do not use an italic Hebrew font for emphasis, names and titles (including titles of "major works"), words as words, foreign terms, scientific names, or variables. There is no proper use for Hebrew italics, except as an unusual font style. I strongly recommend removing Hebrew from the above list. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Italicizing horses' names

Horses often have peculiar names, and in some cases are named after common names of cities, people, animals, etc. For example Ulysses S. Grant had several horses named Cincinnati and Jeff Davis and Fox, which sometimes may be confusing when these names are used in a sentence unless they are italicized.  e.g.Grant received Cincinnati during the Civil War.   As both ships and horses are modes of transportation, it would seem italicizing horses names would also be permissible. I'm wondering if there's any set policy that prohibits this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the style guide of American Horse Publications ("Promoting excellence in equine media") says to italicize Titles of books, magazines, newspapers, plays, movies, long musical compositions, long poems, and names of trains, planes, and ships, I'd say the answer to your question is no. EEng 02:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers it seems like a good styleguide rule! Do any existing style guides use this though? ‑‑Yodin^T 13:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well in addition to my post above we have The Inland Printer (a trade magazine, 1901): "Italicizing used to be almost universal in the case of names of dramatic characters and of vessels, and even horses' names used to be printed in italics, but the practice seems to have been nearly dropped at least as to horses ..." EEng 14:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As in the above example, it would seem italicizing the name Cincinnati would let the reader know that we are referring to something other than the city of Cincinnati, which is never italicized. Seems there is more benefits than not by employing this practice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

We could also put horse's names in green small caps, and names of planets bold, and any number of things. Sometimes there are conflicting practices (e.g. spelling variations) out in the real world, and in such cases we have to find a way to choose among them or otherwise navigate the conflict. What we never do is make up conventions no one else uses. This is a nonstarter. EEng 23:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Green and bold lettering in the main text are specifically prohibited. We would not be making up a convention, but only extending an existing one, and not in any sort of radical manner. WP policies and guidelines are sometimes modified when there is a good reason to do so. Ship's names and some aircraft, all modes of transportation, are italicized with good reason. Those reasons easily apply to horses' names, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

But we could, if we wanted, change our guidelines to allow bold in the case of planet names, but we're not going to because no one would understand what we're doing, just like we could, if we wanted, change the guidelines to allow italics in the case of horse names, but we're not going to because no one would understand what we're doing. Ship names are italicized because everyone italicizes ship names; aircraft names are sometimes italicized because people sometimes italicize aircraft names; horse names are not italicized because no one italicizes horse names (or dog names, or people names, or parakeet names). Extending an existing convention is making up a convention, and will do nothing but puzzle our readers. This sounds like a job for SMcCandlish. Brace yourself. EEng 00:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The Amphicar (no italics): an "improvement" on the automobile? You decide!

-EEng
See also car-boat. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Improving on the automobile is not inventing the automobile. Same with existing conventions. Italicization is generally used in the academic world for names and titles, and would be received as such if used for horses' names. The notion that no one will understand is not very compelling. The assumption that if we italicize names of horses, modes of transportation, we must do it with parrots, dogs, etc. doesn't carry far because that same argument could be said of italicizing ship's names. e.g.If we do it with ships we should do it with cars, buses, trains, etc. So far I'm not seeing much of a reason not to do it with horses, other than the claim that no one will understand.    I don't suspect there will be much support for this as in my experience, editors are generally resistant to change. No biggie. I can live with things as they are. Brace myself?  Why?  Is Atila the Editor about to attack? :-)   —- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my arguments, but that's OK; I think it's time we wait for other editors to opine. And yes, if you haven't seen Atila the Editor (no italics) in action you're in for a treat. Atila, do your stuff. EEng 02:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Never pass up a good excuse to reference Monty Python [2].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Animal proper names are never italicized, just like people. Book titles or ships are, but they are inanimate objects. Lassie is a great example. The television show name is, the actual dog is not. Similarly, the name for the human species is, our names are not. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

EENG — Comparing my suggestion to italicize horses' names as an invention, and then comparing it to an "Amphicar", aside from it being hazing, is the only misrepresentation around here. Italiics are used for some names and titles - I wasn't trying to introduce the square wheel. Also, at this point I really don't appreciate you baiting or wooing another editor to come in such a manner where you feel I should brace myself. This is just a simple discussion about use of italics, not a contest, and honest debate is welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Try taking life less seriously. EEng 22:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I misread your intentions, and since this is the Christmas season, okay. But after New Years is over, I expect that serious consideration will be given to the square wheel -- it works great here on our flat earth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Montanabw — My suggestion was that, aside from people, we simply italicize things that are given names. Ships, some aircraft, horses are given names. Automobiles, trains, etc are not. Yes, Lassie is not italicized, but I suspect it has been in some text, just for the sake of discussion. Again, I can see there's no support for my suggestion but at the same time I can live with the existing convention. Thanks for your thoughts everyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is nothing magically special about horses, nor domesticated animals more broadly. We have more articles on notable horses than any others, with dogs a distant second, and these articles do not put the animals' names in italics, quotation marks, or any other special markup (except where some drive-by editor has done it here and there and no one else has noticed and reverted it). Our standard at WP is to not apply a stylization unless the vast majority of topically independent reliable sources also apply that style with near uniformity; certainly not the case with italicization of horse names. The very fact that the names are sometimes strange helps distinguish them as names in the first place. In cases of potential ambiguity or confusion, just write to be extra-clear (at least at first occurrence). This is really the same "issue" as every other case of ambiguity, such as common names of species that sound like descriptions rather than species names (e.g. red salamander). Just put your thinking cap on (WP:Common sense): "the red salamander species (Pseudotriton ruber)", "her racehorse, named Insert Something Funny Here, won the ...", and so on. EEng is of course correct that trying to extend real-world conventions, like italicization of book titles and ship names, to something new is just making up a fake "convention" that will mean nothing to anyone but its inventor and will be confusing to readers while making WP's output look more sloppy and amateurish. Gwillhickers (who seems to have retracted the idea but who has made what seem to be behavioral accusation that need to be addressed) said it all right here: "My suggestion was that, aside from people, we simply italicize things that are given names." Yes, and that's a very strange idea that no one in the world implements; this is what people were pointing out to you, and you were taking offense. Opposition to the idea wasn't "hazing", it was editorial disagreement with a proposal to radically change a stable guideline to call for something at odds with standard English writing practices, at high cost to WPs comprehensibility and probably its reputation. So, no, your arguments were not being misrepresented. PS: EEng, thanks for citing The Inland Printer. It's one of my favorites, along with The Studio, for publishing and thereby preserving a lot of the best examples of Art Nouveau illustrations and adornments, up until Art Deco supplanted it. Even some of the advertising was gorgeous.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Italicizing yaoi

Could use more opinions at Talk:Yaoi#Italicizing. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Greek Letter Organization Title.

It appears that for greek letter organizations, articles fairly consistently start with (Presuming a fraternity called Theta Upsilon Lambda)

'''Theta Upsilon Lambda''' ('''θΥΛ''') is a social fraternity founded in...

is there any problem with this from the WP:NOBOLD policy? The editors who are active on WikiProject:Fraternity and Sorority don't seem to have a problem with it (and in fact, most will change an article to this standard).Naraht (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Acronyms and Other Names (or other spellings in this context, I suppose) are permitted to be bold. Do you see an actual issue here? --Izno (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw the policy and was wondering if it was a problem to those who look at this from a larger context, apparently its fine. Thank You.Naraht (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Italics of spacecraft names per "Named vessels"

Someone edited this to change the spirit of the consensus developed to exclude spacecraft "names" which are in fact derived from the mission names, such as Voyager 2:

** Spacecraft (including fictional): the Space Shuttle Challenger, Gaia satellite, USS Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution-class starships. Do not italicize a mission, series, or class, except where it coincides with a craft's name: the Eagle was the Apollo 11 lunar lander; Voyager 2 was launched as part of the Voyager program.

The vessels convention does not apply to smaller conveyances such as cars, trucks, and buses, or to mission names. Also, most real-world spacecraft and rockets at this time are not given proper names, thus Apollo 11, Saturn V, Voyager 2, Falcon 9, etc. are not appropriate.

This is inappropriate; WP:Wikiproject Spaceflight has a vested interest in the maintenance of this MOS standard. It was last discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 7#Italics for spacecraft and OLV names? on Feruary 5, 2016. The NASA style guide states:

All orbiter names should be capitalized [sic] (e.g. Atlantis, Columbia, Discovery). We also italicize lunar module and command module names (e.g. Eagle, Columbia, Odyssey, Aquarius ). We do not italicize mission names (STS-44, Apollo 11). All ships should be italicized (e.g. the Hornet , the Enterprise ). We do not italicize the names of probes and robotic spacecraft (e.g. Voyager, Cassini).

Therefore, Voyager 2 is inappropriate, as this "spacecraft name" was derived from the mission name. The MOS guide passage should read:

• • Spacecraft (including fictional): the Space Shuttle Challenger, Gaia satellite, USS Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution-class starships. Do not italicize a mission, series, or class, or a craft's name derived from a mission name: the Eagle was the Apollo 11 lunar lander.

The vessels convention does not apply to smaller conveyances such as cars, trucks, and buses, or to mission names. Also, most real-world spacecraft and rockets at this time are not given proper names, thus Apollo 11, Saturn V, Voyager 2, Falcon 9, etc. are not appropriate.

Yours truly, JustinTime55 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JustinTime55, the WikiProject may have an interest, but it does not get to decide the content of this page per WP:CONLEVEL.

There was a later discussion in late 2017 which resulted in this edit. That discussion was this one. Given the weakness of both discussions and per CONLEVEL, I have reverted your edit until such time as there is a stronger consensus to make the change you are suggesting. --Izno (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation inside or outside of italicisation apostrophes?

When italicised words are followed by punctuation, should the punctuation be placed within the apostrophes, or after?: .'' or ''.)? Long ago I was led to believe we should use the former but have found no guideline to support this and today saw someone reference WP:MOS when changing examples to the latter. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: Outside, unless the punctuation mark is part of the literal string (e.g. the "." at the end of "cf." – code: ''[[cf.]]''). Same basic reasoning as MOS:LQ: if it's not part of the integral string of content that is being marked up, it goes outside the markup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Italics for "summa cum laude", "magna cum laude"and "cum laude"?

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style) I took out italics at Kannon Shanmugam in "graduated in 1998 with a Juris Doctor magna cum laude.", this in accordance with MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, which says "phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization." Also, "If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." My change was reverted, and a lengthy discussion ensued. I think we might add "summa cum laude" to the examples in the MoS of things that do not need italics. Most dictionaries list "summa cum laude", and macmillandictionary.com and collinsdictionary.com show examples with no italics. MW italicizes all items in its examples on any word, so don't let that mislead you. Just the existence of an entry in these dictionaries and merriam-webster is pretty good evidence of assimilation into the English language. Is it a good idea to add to the MoS examples? Chris the speller ^yack 19:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I searched several major newspapers, and I'm not seeing italics. Chris the speller ^yack 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on a quick search, I'd say leave off the italics. It's a common enough expression a la something like de facto that it's more troublesome to call it out with formatting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Copying comment from elsewhere:

The ultimate question is whether cum laude and its variants are "phrases in other languages [or] isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English" (per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC). An online dictionary is just one fairly small piece of evidence going toward that ultimate question. I argue that they only have everyday use in specialized English: namely, in certain university degrees in the United States and some other non-English-speaking countries. Merriam-Webster also has an entry for "nunc pro tunc", are we going to unitalicize that, too? What about "mutatis mutandis"—that's in there too. ([3])  White Whirlwind  04:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not specialized in American English (possibly Canadian as well). The question becomes what to do with a common foreign word in relation to MOS:ENGVAR.—Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've worked at a university most of my working life (over two decades) in Canada and it's not used commonly at all. The only reason I have some awareness of it is because of American TV and films. I would be skeptical of any claims it's non-specialized (or even used in a post-secondary context) in Canada. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: "I searched several major newspapers, and I'm not seeing italics." That is not a useful criterion; most newspapers do not italicize anything (even titles of works, scientific names of species, etc.), and are thus not a reliable source for what to do with regard to italics in encyclopedic writing. We have our own style guide for a reason, and WP is not written in news style, as a matter of policy.

More to the point your OP: MOS:FOREIGNITALICS suggests using Merriam-Webster Online entries to answer specific-term questions of this sort (though really, any current, reputable dictionary will do; see list of them at WP:WPENGLISH). If you're not in a hurry, it's probably best to see what they say in the aggregate, on any such questions – be it about italics or spelling or whatever. And the page just mentioned lists at least one meta-search for this purpose. MW, like many other dictionaries, actually does italicize cum laude and related phrases; so, while they are common latinisms in English, they are not fully assimilated as English (unlike, say, "versus" and "villa" and "cornucopia", and arguably "etc." and "e.g." and "i.e."). Ergo, they should be italicized on WP.
PS: FOREIGNITALICS had a bug in it; it wrongly implied to not italicize anything found at all in MW, which of course was nonsensical, since MW includes all common Latin→English loans, and indicates whether they are assimilated enough to be given without italics. All the major dictionaries do this.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:You may not have noticed that MW italicizes every word and phrase, even "table". Your change to the FOREIGNITALICS MoS has introduced a "bug", not removed one. Chris the speller ^yack 14:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well rip mah nostrils! Good catch. I self-reverted. We need to recommend one or more good e-dictionaries that make the typographic distinction in their entries, then. Will take some research. On this specific question ("summa cum laude", etc.): neither Chicago Manual of Style nor Garner's Modern English say anything specific, but both are generally permissive of treating Latin terms as non-italicized unless they're especially obscurantist. And Oxford Style Manual (i.e. New Hart's Rules + Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors in one volume) specifically says "not ital." at the "summa cum laude" entry. I can't find my copy of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English, but it is intentionally synched, each edition, with New Hart's. So I will consider myself corrected, as having been too italics-happy. (The point stands, though, about news sources in particular not being indicative of style for encyclopedic writing; we have "Wikipedia is not written in news style" in the policy for good reasons.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I changed the rule to "multiple English dictionaries" so it isn't specifically dependent on Merriam-Webster Online. Kaldari (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Italics in citations (again)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 72#Italics 2 – another round of recurrent dispute over what to italicize in citations, and whether to cite just the publisher if the work title and the publisher are essentially the same. This was addressed in a previous RfC fairly recently, and many prior discussions, but there still seems to be some doubt among some editors what the answers are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sanity check: Italics for exhibits?

Am I correct that museum exhibits (e.g., those curated by Barbara Rose) should be in italics and not quotation marks? My general nonwiki rule of thumb is that standalone works get italics and elements of works (e.g., chapters, parts of a collection) get quotes, but I wasn't sure if the wikirule is the same. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS::BOLD

My interpretation of MOS:BOLD The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not is that the article title terms are emboldened in the lead and again in the article. The issue arose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States war plans (1945–1950)/archive1, where the article has multiple redirects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Bolding nicknames

When bolding a nickname in a biography, do we bold the quote marks or not? Is it Charles Alfred "Andy" Anderson or Charles Alfred "Andy" Anderson? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:NICKNAME says: "The quotation marks are not put in lead-section boldface." —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: names in bold type in bio leads of royal women

After many years logged in on Wikipedia the time has come in the activity of the undersigned to address common de facto editing which I feel clearly defeats meaning and purpose as given here under "Boldface". The general intent seems to be that a term that redirects to the article should be bold in the lead, not that it be intentionally excluded.

The matter of naming royal women has proven to be a very sensitive and controversial one where several experienced users express strong opinions, wanting format traditionally used in genealogical listings to prevail throughout. I cannot find any Wikipedia guideline which supports such a view. As can be seen on my user page, a few Wikipedia standards and I do not agree. That, however, is not relevant, and I have learned long ago always to abide by consensus.

It would be a good service to our readers if a woman who is very widely known by her married name, such as Grace of Monaco to name one of hundreds, could have that widely-known and frequently used alias in bold type at the top of her article. The same would apply to anyone widely known as Louise of Sweden and especially as Queen of any country. A contraction such as “also known as Queen Louise of Sweden” would be very helpful here. A lead referring to Countess Georgina von Wilczek only by a maiden name format, virtually unknown outside of genealogy, to me is unfathomable. We have ended up with de facto usage rather violently defeating sicut intentio. To try to avoid another decade or two of reverts, discussions, arguments, accusations, frustration, confusion, inconsistency and animosity about these things, I am making the following constructive proposal for addition under "Boldface":

Proposal: It is appropriate to use bold type in leads for titles of royalty along with geographical qualifications of that royalty - Queen of [Country] - in articles about royal women, especially when redirects and disambiguation pages redirect to such articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Shall I add this to the guideline since nobody seems to object? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think nobody objects, especially as you claim to have been in a conflict related to it. That said, the guideline already supports your reading, so adding to the guideline is inappropriate. --Izno (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I read your comment to mean that proposals by people who have been in conflict about the issue should be ignored. Right? If that so, I've learned another Wikipedianism. I would be very grateful, in any case, if you would quote the guideline here to show me how it clearly supports my proposal. That would be quite useful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite the obvious misinterpretation there given the rest of my comment. You thought you should modify the guideline because no one here had contested your suggested change. My point was that if you had consensus for the actions the guideline would now prescribe directly, then you would not have come into conflict about it.

No, I don't think I'll do your homework for you, given that attitude. --Izno (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I am trying in the best of faith to propose something constructive that would preclude more confusion and help everyone do a better job on this issue for the sake of the project, and I am asking other users for help to do that. If these true intentions of mine are not obvious, I'm sincerely sorry. You are finding bad faith and want to make this all about me. I don't know why, and I can't see how that's constructive. Have you argued with me before about something, so you're already pissed off?

Is "the guideline would now prescribe directly" hypothetical? I don't understand (have taught English since 1969).

Can we make this discussion about the issue, not about each other and ourselves?

Anyone else? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox person § Bolding of native names

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox person § Bolding of native names. — Goszei (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Nihongo about kerning and CSS

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Nihongo § Template-protected edit request on 7 June 2021 — Kerning issues. — Goszei (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Long S in quotations

MOS:CONFORM says Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text. This would seem to include the use of the archaic orthography such as the long s. If this is the case, I think it would be appropriate to add that as an example. However, not knowing what the general practice is, I hesitate to modify the existing MOS. YBG (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Long s is already specifically mentioned in the last bullet of the list that follows the paragraph you quoted from: Normalize archaic glyphs and ligatures in English that are unnecessary to the meaning. Examples include æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and þ^e→the. Indefatigable (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! YBG (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Explanation of edit

A slightly longer explanation of this edit: Special:Diff/1037883674. By default, the scale within the bodies of infoboxes and navboxes is 88% of the prose. This body-scale shows up in field names (like "Nationality"), the values of those fields (say, "American"), and captions, etc. Applying a small tag (85% modifier) to this 88% will generate an impermissible scale of (88% * 85% equals) 74.8%. However, other common parts of infoboxes and navboxes, for example the main bolded headings, are usually larger (110% of the prose size in infoboxes, 127.6% in sidebar navboxes, 100% in bottom navboxes). Applying an 85% small tag (or various other sizing percentages) to these will result in text that lands above the 85% requirement of MOS:SMALLFONT.

Obviously there is a lot of variation across different templates and portions within those templates, so the easiest way to check for SMALLFONT compliance is by using Inspect element in your browser and doing some division with the rendered font-sizes. I edited the wording because I have seen more than one editor misconstrue the guidance as a blanket ban on small tags in infoboxes/navboxes. — Goszei (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I grabbed the wording from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Font size and put it in... seems more complete. We should consider making one or the other the source wording and use section transclusion to ensure it doesn't get out of sync again. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Foreign-language article titles

Moved from Template talk:Lang § Foreign-language article titles

According to MOS:FOREIGNITALIC and MOS:FOREIGNTITLE, the {{Lang}} template should be used whenever foreign-language text is mentioned in the article. I was wondering if this also applies to the bold reiteration of the article title in the lead? Or to the article title itself? I'm asking because it feels like it should, but I never actually see this happen in articles. I also wonder about section headings, because you're not allowed to put templates in headings per MOS:HEADINGS. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not possible for this template to create html markup for the actual article title (the <h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading" >Template talk:Lang</h1> html tag). If you feel strongly enough about this you might suggest a feature request at phabricator for some mechanism to set the lang= attribute for an article's <h1>...</h1> tag. This is not likely to be the correct venue to determine if section headings should have language markup. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles and/or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting? For section headings, you can add a <span>...</span> tag with lang= and possibly title= attributes. If this kind of markup is determined to be desirable at the appropriate venue, then a special, substable, form of this template for section headings might be developed. And, title reiteration in bold markup does happen: see the lead at Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, for example.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hm yeah that makes sense; I guess I'll move the discussion there. I did try to use the lang template in the DISPLAYTITLE on my sandbox and it appears to work. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

{{lang}} does work in DISPLAYTITLE, that’s what we use on the French Wikipedia for foreign-language article titles. --Thibaut (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh interesting. We could maybe make such a template for the English Wikipedia as well? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think of that. Retracted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Italicizing category names?

Should category names be italicized (e.g. via {{Italic title}})? This would be specifically italicizing terms in the category name that would be normally italicized in prose per this guideline, e.g. names of books/TV shows. I looked through the MoS and category help pages, and did some searches for likely terms, but couldn't find any relevant-looking guidance or discussion (though feel free to point out any such, if you'd like to make me look bad =) ). It appears that category names are not currently italicized. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 21:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think every mention of a major work should be italicised, including in category names. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park § Bold formatting

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park § Bold formatting. Should bullet-listed names be bold formatted? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Bolding in non-lead infoboxes

Academic rankings
Liberal arts
U.S. News & World Report	74
Washington Monthly	70
National
Forbes	40
WSJ/College Pulse	147

At WikiProject Higher education, most college articles use an academic rankings infobox (example right) in the appropriate section in the body. Some also use an NRHP box and the more recently created {{Infobox U.S. college admissions}}. An example of all three can be seen at Scripps College. These all follow the traditional formatting, with labels in bold on the left and values unbolded on the right. SandyGeorgia recently brought up that (I'd say particularly for the rankings box) this seems like excessive bolding, and looking at MOS:BOLD I see no information on infoboxes. Do any of you have thoughts on what our best practice should be in this area? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

An infobox is just a table and tables have header cells and data cells. The bold styling of the header cells in the infobox is the same as it is for any other table. Izno I believe has some kind of work in progress of changing infoboxes from this table syntax to something else. Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Izno. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't per se like the academic rankings infobox given its usual location (to wit, it's not a 'lead' infobox, which can lead to some interesting mobile placement), but no, I think this use of bold is fine. It's basically serving as a two column wikitable with headers, and the headers would be bold (by default) anyway. I wouldn't mind if it were actually transformed to be a wikitable instead of an infobox possibly with plainrowheaders, but that's a separate discussion from this question. Izno (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I support the regular font (removing the bold weight) for two reasons. Keep in mind that the purpose is to make the boxes easy to read, partly because of the familiar template. First, the ranking name is a proper noun rather than a general property, which is normally bolded (e.g., Motto, Location, etc.). Second, the ranking name has a superscript reference. I do not recall anywhere on Wikipedia where a text with bold font has a reference (at least not common). However, I would like to add another suggestion. The ranking is not absolute. Not everyone checks the reference. The year of ranking should be given. Or there should be a systematic review to remove old rankings. Note that changes in the rankings from year to year is the basis of manoeuvre for universities. And they should all belong to the same year for the sake of comparison, or the ranking year should be mentioned.MojoDiJi (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not support specially coding these to look different from other infoboxes. This is one of those lame WP:BIKESHED things. Find something more constructive to do than hand-wring about typographic quibbles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

References
References

Contradition in usages of bold and italics

While thinking about the above discussion I noticed that this MOS page currently violates itself. The sections about boldface and italics start by giving an example of what it looks like with the "text like this" part, and then go on to explain that bold and italics should only be used in certain cases. But none of those cases cover the "text like this" part. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Much of the guidance in the MOS only applies to article space, not Wikipedia space. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Use of bold and italics in the legend for a table

(For context see User talk:Mitch Ames#Removal of "unnecessary self-referential text formatting") I noticed Mitch Ames making changes to various motorsport articles, in particular removing italic and bolded text from the legend of a table. For an example, see this edit [4], changing "Bold - Pole position" to "Bold - Pole position". They claim that this is supported by the MOS, in particular MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALIC, since this specific useage is not mentioned in the MOS. I don't agree that the MOS is even relevant in such an instance since the usage of bolding in the table is obviously specific to that table, and I feel that in the same way that colours are used in the legend, bolding (and italics where relevant) should be used as well. Am I correct in my thinking? I also couldn't find anything in the MOS specifically pertaining to the legends of tables, perhaps something should be added? A7V2 (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

pinging @Britmax: who also raised this on Mitch Ames' talk page. A7V2 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that the MOS is even relevant in such an instance since the usage of bolding in the table is obviously specific to that table — The text under consideration ("Bold - pole position" etc) is part of the article, and there's nothing in MOS:BOLD or MOS:ITALIC that excludes that text from those sections of MOS.

colours are used in the legend — The legend text is not part of the article, in that it does not appear when reading the article - it is only visible if the reader follows the link from the single word "key" that is visible in the article. That alone is sufficient to suggest that it need not comply with the same formatting rules. Note that the use of colour has its own guideline, MOS:COLOR, which does allow the use of colour in tables (whereas MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALIC do not allow formatting in those scenarios, as previously explained at User talk:Mitch Ames § Removal of "unnecessary self-referential text formatting").

... couldn't find anything in the MOS specifically pertaining to the legends of tables, perhaps something should be added? — There's no need to allow special rules for table legends, because there's no need for those legends to have special formatting. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow... For one thing, the table is part of the article, so then given there's nothing in the MOS to allow bolding to indicate pole position (as in that particular case) why would that be permitted but not in the explanatory note/key? Also I don't understand what you mean by The legend text is not part of the article, in that it does not appear when reading the article - it is only visible if the reader follows the link from the single word "key" that is visible in the article.. In the example I've given (1969 Australian Touring Car Championship#Championship standings) the legend appears immediately next to the table. Would it be acceptable if the explanation of the bolding be in the table itself? A7V2 (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

given there's nothing in the MOS to allow bolding to indicate pole position (as in that particular case) why would that be permitted ... ? — I assert that strictly speaking it is not permitted. However it does serve a useful purpose and there's no easy or obvious alternative, so it's an obvious case of WP:IAR. However in the legend text the formatting does not add information - we can reasonably expect that our readers know what the words "bold" and "italics" mean - so is not improving Wikipedia and IAR does not apply.

In the example I've given ... the legend appears immediately next to the table. — My mistake. Most of the pages I was looking at (example) don't show the legend table, but evidently some do. However my points still stand - MOS explicitly disallows bold, italics, but MOS:COLOR allows colour.

Would it be acceptable if the explanation of the bolding be in the table itself? — No because the reason for the removal of the formatting has nothing to do with the position of the text (visible in the article) inside or outside of the table. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

On this topic, wouldn't such a thing be better just mentioned in prose? Having just that small bit of text there feels awkward. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with A7V2 here. Neither WP:BOLD nor WP:ITALICS advise for or against this use (therefore it is not supported), and I doubt they're even relevant in the context of a legend. If colours are used to specify what each colour represents, then so should boldface and italics. That has been the practice for years, at least in articles on racing drivers or seasons (which is what I generally work on anyway). It does not look messy or obstruct readability and if anything it helps the reader spot the legend more easily, so I don't really see the point in making all these changes. I'd also like to ask Mitch Ames to please stop reverting while the discussion is ongoing. MSport1005 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither WP:BOLD nor WP:ITALICS advise for or against this use — MOS does explicitly advise against this use of bold/italic formatting (with my addition of italics here for emphasis):

• MOS:BOLD - "Boldface ... is considered appropriate only for certain usages" (implicitly those listed in that section, which does not include those of bold and italics to illustrate the meaning of those words)
• MOS:BOLD#OTHER - "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases" (which does not include those of bold and italics to illustrate the meaning of those words)
• MOS:ITALIC "Italics, ... are used for various specific purposes in Wikipedia, outlined below" (which does not include those of bold and italics to illustrate the meaning of those words)

If colours are used to specify what each colour represents, then so should boldface and italics. — No. MOS explicitly disallows bold/italics, whereas MOS:COLOR explicitly allows colour in tables. MOS:COLOR explicitly says "do not use colored ... background unless its status is also indicated using another method" and one could argue that in the case of Template:Motorsport driver results legend (but not the tables for which it is a legend) the use of both the colour and the text naming the colour (eg "Green") is consistent with that requirement of MOS:COLOR. But there is no similar requirement in MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALICS. (Frankly I suspect that the use of colour in the motorsports tables themselves (as opposed to the key/legend table) is contrary to the accessibility requirements described in MOS:COLOR, but that's a separate issue, one that I have no interest in pursuing.)

It does not look messy or obstruct readability ... — That is a matter of opinion; the fact that MOS advises against it suggests that the consensus of editors, myself included, disagree.

Mitch Ames (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Mitch Ames to please stop reverting while the discussion is ongoing — So far as I can tell, I have not made any bold/italic formatting edits since anybody objected, and not reverted any reinstatement of that formatting at all. The timeline is:

• ... I'm making multiple edits removing bold/italic formatting
• [5] 12:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC): Britmax asks why, on my talk page. (A neutral question, not an explicit objection.)
• [6] 12:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC): I reply, on my talk page, with links to relevant MOS guidelines.
• ... I continue removing bold/italic formatting
• [7] 13:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC): My last edit removing bold/italic formatting
• [8] 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC): A7V2 joins discussion on my talk page
• ... more discussion on my talk page, then it moves here.

Note that MSport1005 has reverted some edits, (example, 18:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)) during the discussion, although I accept that they are in the spirit of WP:BRD. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that the way the MOS is written implies a consensus against using bold or italics in this manner. Of course as written, it can't include everything. But given that colours are used for a similar function, it seems unnecessary overreach to say it's not allowed for text formatting. Further, the fact that this practice has been commonplace for years (perhaps a decade or more), including in featured articles suggests a clear consensus established by editing which I don't feel can be overruled by a guideline which doesn't explicitly mention such a usage. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that the way the MOS is written implies a consensus against using bold or italics in this manner. — How else could you interpret the words "only for certain usages"?

practice has been commonplace for years... suggests a clear consensus established by editing — "An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed", which is what I'm doing.

colours are used for a similar function, it seems unnecessary overreach to say it's not allowed for text formatting — The difference between bold/italic and colour is that the former has well defined usages in MOS (and explicit statements limiting that usage to "only for certain usages", "specific purposes in Wikipedia, outlined below") whereas colour does not. Thus acceptance of colour (which has no meaning predefined by MOS) does not imply acceptance of bold/italics (which does). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to claim that it is necessarily consensus (since consensus can change, etc) but refuting your claim that "the fact that MOS advises against it suggests that the consensus of editors, myself included, disagree". You don't speak for others. They may have not considered this particular usage. The fact that no-one has queried this for years until now suggests that the consensus is at the very least, unclear on this issue. If guidelines advice against doing something (which again, do not even specifically mention this particular usage, so it could be argued it was merely overlooked/not considered) which has been done for years without issue, then it is far too much of a stretch to say that a consensus exists to not do it, and it is more than possible the guidelines should be changed, even if that is only to specifically mention this particular usage. But just us going back and forth will achieve nothing. A wider discussion is needed. A7V2 (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I've created an RFC. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Might I remind you that MOS is a guideline. It doesn’t allow or disallow anything. It merely encourages or discourages things.Tvx1 12:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I take your point. Wikipedia has no firm rules, and those that it does have can sometimes be ignored. However MOS is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, subject to common sense and occasional exceptions. The debate is whether the articles in question are, or should, following the guidelines. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Formatting of non-English words, including proper nouns and use of Lang template

In the article Johanna Quaas, recently a DYK, I used the {{Lang}} to wrap German words and sentences, using the italic=no setting for the words that were proper nouns. Another editor removed the templates (not the latest version) soon after it was posted to the main page which, in turn, became a non-productive discussion on the talk page of the article. I need your help. I had read the template instructions as well as this MOS page and think I understand how to write for accessibility and to implement other styling for non-English words. I thought (think) what I had put in the article code was in accordance with the MOS as well as important for accessibility for the visually impaired and screen readers. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eewilson: As far as I know, personal names should normally not be tagged with {{lang}} templates, because "Johanna Quaas" is perfectly fine in English text. Meanwhile, things like "Landes-Seniorenspiele" are clearly not English-language text so should be tagged with {{lang}}. However, now that I'm looking into this I do notice that there isn't really any guidance about when and when not to use the {{lang}} template. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There's the link to MOS:ACCESS (specifically, but probably not only, MOS:LANG). I wonder if everything related to this actually falls under that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)